Cta Eb CV 00773 D 2012may08 Ref PDF

·.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Court of Tax Appeals
QUEZON CITY
ENBANC
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL C.T.A. EB NO. 773
REVENUE, (C.T.A. CASE NO. 7242)
Petitioner,
Present:
A COSTA, Presiding Justice,

CASTANEDA, JR.,
BAUTISTA,
UY,
-versus- CASANOVA,
PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ,
F ABON-VICTORINO,
MINDARO-GRULLA, and
COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, JJ.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Promulgated:

Respondent. MAY 0 8 2012
_ _ _ _ _ _..<.,
/~
&Jd'7~~~
1', ~ -
"'.f,tl
X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
DECISION
PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, J..:
When the law is clear, there is no other recourse but to apply it regardless
of its perceived harshness. Dura lex sed lex (Obiasca vs. Basallote, 61 3 SCRA 11 9) .
As a court, our duty is to apply the law. We have no choice but to see to it that
the mandate ofthe law is obeyed. (}fJt

C.T.A. EB NO. 773 2
(C.T.A. CASE NO. 7242)
DECISION
THE CASE
This is a Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (hereinafter "CIR") under Section 3(b), Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised
Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended, in relation to Rule 43 of the
199 7 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which seeks to reverse the Decision
dated December 6, 2010 and Resolution dated April 15 , 2011 rendered by the
Second Division of this Court in C.T.A. Case No. 7242, the respective
dispositive portions of which read, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Amended

Petition for Review is GRANTED, as follows:
1. Respondent's denial due to prescnptwn of

MERALCO's claim for a tax refund or credit for the taxable
years 1994-1998 and 2000 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
2. Respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND or TO

ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of
MERALCO in the amount of P5,796,342,792 .71 ,
corresponding to the claim for a tax refund or credit for the
taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000, subject to and in
proportion that the refund or credit to future consumption
due to the customers concerned in the average amount of
PO .167 per kilowatthour arising from the Supreme Court's
Decision in G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369, has been actually
given or credited to them by MERALCO.
SO ORDERED."
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 3
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, both respondent's

'Motion for Reconsideration' and petitioner's 'Motion for Partial
Reconsideration and Clarification' are hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
THE PARTIES
Petitioner is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue
empowered to assess and collect all national internal revenue taxes, fees, and
charges, including the power to decide refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or
other charges, with office address at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (hereinafter
"BIR") National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, where
she may be served with summons and other legal processes.
On the other hand, respondent Manila Electric Company (hereinafter
"MERALCO") is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office at Lopez Building,
Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City, and engaged in the business of distributing and
supplying electric power within its franchise area. It is a registered taxpayer
with TIN 000-101-528-000 and Certificate of Registration No.
OCN8RCOOOOO 16119 issued by the BIR.
THE FACTS
The facts, as found by the Second Division, are, as follows:

oP
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 4
DECISION
On December 23, 1993, MERALCO filed with the Energy Regulatory
Board (hereinafter "ERB") an application for the revision of its rate schedules
with a prayer for a provisional approval of the increase, docketed as ERB Case
No. 93-118. On January 28, 1994, the ERB issued an Order granting a
provisional increase of P0.184 per kwh, subject to the condition that after
hearing and evaluation, should MERALCO be entitled to a lesser increase in
rates, all excess amounts collected by MERALCO shall be refunded to its
customers or credited to their future consumption.
Thus, MERALCO paid the income tax due on its taxable income based
on gross electric revenue computed at an average basic distribution rate of
P2.996 per kwh (i.e., existing average rate of P2.812 per kwh, plus provisional
increase ofP0.184).
On February 16, 1998, the ERB rendered a decision granting a rate
increase of only P0.017 per kwh and ordering MERALCO to refund or credit to
its customers the average amount ofP0.167 per kwh beginning February 1994.
MERALCO appealed the decision of the ERB to the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46888. On February 24, 1999, the Court of
Appeals rendered a decision reversing the ERB decision.
The CIR and the Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty, et al. appealed
the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R.
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 5
DECISION
No. 141314 entitled "Republic of the Philippines, represented by Energy
Regulatory Board vs. Manila Electric Company ", and G.R. No. 141369 entitled
"Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP), et al. vs. Manila Electric
Company ", respectively.
On November 15, 2002, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in G.R.
Nos. 141314 and 141369 reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, the
dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant

petitions are GRANTED and the decision of the Court of
Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 46888 is REVERSED.
Respondent MERALCO is authorized to adopt a rate
adjustment in the amount of P0.017 per kilowatthour, effective
with respect to MERALCO's billing cycles beginning February
1994. Further, in accordance with the decision of the ERB
dated February 16, 1998, the excess average amount of P0.167
per kilowatthour starting with the applicant's billing cycles
beginning February 1998 is ordered to be refunded to
MERALCO's customers or correspondingly credited in their
favor for future consumption.
SO ORDERED."
On May 5, 2003, the decision of the Supreme Court became final and
executory.
Consequently, MERALCO's gross electric revenue during the taxable
years 1994-1998 and 2000-2001, taxable income and income tax liability were
reduced, thereby resulting to excess income tax payments, as follows:

(#t
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 6
DECISION
ORIGINAL REDUCED INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

EXCESS
YEAR TAXABLE TAXABLE ORIGINALLY ACTUALLY
INCOME TAX
INCOME INCOME PAID PAID
1994 ~5 , 2 77, 6 7 6 , 049 ~3 , 073 , 619 , 745 ~I ,847, 186,617 ~I ,075 , 766,911 ~771 ,419 ,7 06
1995 6,036, 169,086 3,447,481 ,566 2, I 12,659, 180 I ,206,618,548 906,040,632
1996 7,432,351 ,531 4,526,289,260 2,60 I ,323,036 I ,584,20 I ,241 1,01 7, 12 1,795
1997 7,403 , 742,914 4,275 ,202,476 2,591 ,3 I 0,020 I ,496,320,866 1,094,989, 154
1998 6,946,399,606 3,629,126,440 2,361 ,775,866 I ,233 ,902,990 1'12 7, 872,876
2000 4,869,24 7,048 1,373 ,796,730 I ,558, 159,055 439,614,954 I, 118,544, I 0 I
2001 4,012, 193 , 155 387,079,475 1,283 ,901,810 212,355 ,792 I ,071 ,546,018
TOTAL 1!41,977,779,389 1!20,712,595,692 1!14,356,315,584 1!7 ,248, 781,302 1!7 ,1 07,534,282
On November 27, 2003, MERALCO filed a claim for tax refund or credit
of excess income tax payments with the CIR.
On May 4, 2005, due to inaction, MERALCO appealed to this Court in
Division its claim for refund or tax credit of excess income tax payment by way
of a "Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam )".
In her answer, by way of special and affirmative defenses, the CIR
alleged: this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition;
MERALCO's assertion that the two (2)-year period should be reckoned from
the time the Supreme Court decision came out cannot be sustained; MERALCO
has no cause of action under the provision of solutio indebiti; equity belongs to
those who come to court with clean hands; MERALCO had the opportunity to
claim for refund as early as 1998 when the ERB issued its decision ordering
MERALCO to refund PO.l67 per kilowatthour to its consumers; and the
inequity of MERALCO is further exposed when it prayed for the refund of the
entire amount of alleged erroneously collected income taxes it paid from 1994-
{Mi
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 7
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
1998 and 2000-2001, when it has not even showed proof that it paid all of the
amounts it should refund to its consumers.
On November 22, 2005, MERALCO filed a "Motion for Leave to Amend
Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam)" with attached "Amended Petition for
Review (Ad Cautelam)" for the purpose of excluding its claim for tax refund or
credit for taxable year 2001 in the amount ofP1,071,546,018.00 on the ground
that on October 3, 2005, MERALCO received the letter-decision dated
September 21, 2005 from the CIR partially granting its administrative claim for
refund or credit for taxable year 2001 to the extent of P894,4 73,932.58, but
denying the claim for taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000 due to prescription. In
its "Amended Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam)", MERALCO prayed that it
be refunded or issued a tax credit certificate in the amount of
P6,035,988,264.00, representing excess income tax payments for taxable years
1994-1998 and 2000.
On November 24, 2005, the Second Division granted MERALCO's
"Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam)", admitted the
"Amended Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam)", and granted the CIR fifteen
( 15) days from notice to file her amended answer.
On December 9, 2005, the CIR filed her "Answer" to the Amended
Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam).

C.T.A. EB NO . 773 8
DECISION
After the pre-trial was terminated, on May 5, 2006, MERALCO filed a
"Motion to Suspend Proceedings", which the Court granted.
On September 20, 2006, the CIR filed a "Manifestation with Motion to
Admit Attached Supplemental Answer", which the Court granted. On
November 30, 2006, MERALCO filed its "Reply" to the supplemental answer.
After trial on the merits, on December 6, 2010, the Second Division
rendered the assailed Decision granting the Amended Petition for Review.
On December 23, 2010, MERALCO filed a "Motion for Partial
Reconsideration and Clarification", while on December 28, 2010, the CIR filed
her "Motion for Reconsideration". In a Resolution dated April 15, 2011, both
motions were denied for lack of merit.
Not satisfied, the CIR filed the instant "Petition for Review" raising the
sole:
ISSUE
WHETHER THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE

HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FOR REFUND IN THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF I!5,796,342,792.71 FOR
TAXABLE YEARS 1994-1998 AND 2000 DESPITE
THE FACT THAT SAID CLAIM IS BARRED ON
ACCOUNT OF PRESCRIPTION.
(JM
C.T.A. EB NO . 773 9
DECISION
Without necessarily giving due course to the Petition for Review, on May
27, 2011, we required MERALCO to file its comment, within ten (1 0) days
from notice.
On June 27, 2011, after it filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File
Comment on Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Petition for Review",
MERALCO filed its Comment to the Petition for Review.
On July 7, 2011, we ordered both parties to file their simultaneous
memoranda, within thirty (30) days from notice; afterwhich, the petition shall be
deemed submitted for decision.
On August 22, 2011, MERALCO filed its "Memorandum". On the other
hand, on September 9, 2011, the CIR filed a "Motion to Admit Attached
Memorandum", which the Court, in the interest of substantial justice, granted in
its Resolution dated September 28, 2011, and the case was deemed submitted
for decision.
Petitioner CIR 's Arguments
The CIR argues that a claim for refund cannot be made after the two (2)-
year prescriptive period provided under Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended. Since the claim for refund covers the taxable periods 1994 to 1998
and 2000, the Petition for Review filed on May 4, 2005 was evidently filed
beyond the prescriptive period, and with the recommendation of denial from the
w
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 10
DECISION
Revenue Examiners on the ground of prescription, the inescapable conclusion is
that MERALCO is barred from recovering income taxes paid for the subject
taxable years.
Respondent MERALCO's Counter-Arguments
Respondent MERALCO, on the other hand, counter-argues that no one,
not even the State should enrich itself at the expense of another.
Relying in good faith on the ERB 's issuance of the provisional increase,
the decision of the ERB on the allowable increase, the appeal to the Court of
Appeals and the subsequent decision ofthe Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 141314
and 141369, MERALCO claims that on said interim periods, it should not be
penalized for declaring for tax purposes the income it derived therefrom, and
thus, prays for the dismissal of the petition.
THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING
We grant the petition.
The reckoning of the two (2)-vear prescriptive

period under Section 229 of the 1997 NJRC
has been previouslv ruled upon bv the (ormer
CTA En Bane, which decision was affirmed bv
the Supreme Court
At the outset, it must be stressed that the issue raised herein as regards
the reckoning of the two (2)-year prescriptive period under Section 229 is not
novel as said issue had been previously ruled upon by the then six-member
w
C.T.A. EB NO . 773 11
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
CTA En Bane under the ponencia of Associate Justice Juanita C. Castaneda, Jr.
in the case of Atlanta Land Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
C. TA . EB No. 79, May 23, 2006 ("Atlanta case"), where the CTA En Bane
unanimously ruled, as follows:
"The language of the law is unequivocal, it provides that no

suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery
of any national internal revenue tax after the expiration of two (2)
years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of
any supervening cause that may arise after payment.
The date of payment of the tax is the reckoning point of the

two-year period within which a valid claim for refund may be filed
in both the administrative [Sec. 204 (C) NIRC] and judicial levels.
Any claim or proceeding for the recovery of taxes shall be filed
within the two-year prescriptive period, otherwise, the taxpayer
loses his right ipso facto to recover any tax alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally collected.
XXX XXX.
The argument proffered by the petitioner that the two-year

period should commence from the date of the extra-judicial
rescission of the dacion en pago arrangement is contrary to the
clear language of Section 229 of the 1997 NIRC. The same is true
with respect to the other arguments raised by the petitioner, to wit:
that the two-year period should be reckoned from the date of
judicial determination of the act of rescission, the pendency of the
litigation between the petitioner and its creditor bank and the
enactment of R.A. 9182 otherwise known as 'The Special Purpose
Vehicle Act '. These are all extraneous matters from the date of
payment of the tax. In fact, they occurred after the payment of the
tax, thus, not relevant in determining the prescriptive period.
Section 229 explicitly states that the two-year prescriptive period is
not affected by any supervening cause, hence, the phrase
' regardless of any supervening cause'. This phrase was originally
@!(JJ
C.T.A. EB NO . 773 12
DECISION
added by P.D. No. 69 dated November 24, 1972 and was retained
in both the 1977 and 1997 National Internal Revenue Code. The
intent of the law is unmistakable, to establish as a condition sine
qua non that all claims and actions for refund of any tax or penalty
shall be filed within two years from the date of payment of such tax
or penalty, 'even if the taxpayer had no cause for refund as the tax
or penalty, was legally collected, and even if after the lapse of the
two-year period, a supervening cause should arise which would
entitle the taxpayer to refund.
We concur with the ruling of the Court in Division that 'the

two-year prescriptive period for filing an action for tax refund was
purposedly included in Section 229 of the 1997 NIRC to enable the
government to settle claims for refund at the earliest possible time
considering that taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their
prompt and certain availability is an imperious need (Commissioner
of Internal Revenue vs. Pineda, 21 SCRA 105) . The availability of funds
from the collection of taxes cannot forever be left subject to the
contingency of refund brought about by certain acts which are
solely within the exclusive control of the private contracting
parties, otherwise, fiscal adequacy cannot be achieved."
The above CT A En Bane decision was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in G.R. No. 172773 , entitled "Atlanta Land Corporation vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue " in a Resolution dated June 18, 2007
which reads, as follows:
"Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of

the First Division of this Court dated 18 June 2007.
G.R. No. 172773 (Atlanta Land Corporation vs.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue). - It appearing that Atty.
Emilio C. Baligod, counsel for petitioner, failed to file reply to the
comment on the petition for review on certiorari as required in the
Resolution dated 06 December 2006 within the period which
expired on 22 January 2007, the petition is hereby ordered
(MJ
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 13
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
DENIED for failure to comply with said resolution, which

amounts to failure to prosecute.
In any event, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that •

the Court of Tax Appeals committed any reversible error in
the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise of this
Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction." (Emphasis ours.)
On August 22, 2007, the above Resolution of the Supreme Court dated
June 18, 2007 became final and executory and Entry of Judgment was
accordingly issued.
Considering that the Supreme Court had already settled that the reckoning
point of the two (2) year prescriptive period under Section 229 of the NIRC of
1997, as amended, is the date of payment of the tax regardless of any
supervening cause that may arise after payment, we therefore adhere to said
ruling.
Thus, in this case we reiterate and stress the above settled rule that under
Section 229 claims for refund of erroneously, illegally, excessively and
wrongfully collected NIRC tax should be filed within two (2) years from the
date of payment of the tax regardless of any supervening cause that may arise
after payment.
The instant case involves a claim for refund or tax credit of excess
income tax payments for taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000, as a result of the
reduction of the rate per kilowatthour that was granted by the ERB to
~
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 14
DECISION
MERALCO, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 141314 and
141369. Hence, MERALCO's claim for refund or credit falls within the ambit
of Section 229 of the NJRC of 1997, as amended.
Records show that for taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000, MERALCO
fil ed its annual corporate income tax returns (final adjustment returns) and paid
the income taxes due on its taxable income on April 7, 1995 for taxable year
1994, on April 15, 1996 for taxable year 1995, on April 15, 1997 for taxable
year 1996, on April 15 , 1998 for taxable year 1997, on April 15 , 1999 for
taxable year 1998, and on April 11 , 2001 for taxable year 2000. Counting two
(2) years from April 7, 1995, April 15 , 1996, April 15 , 1997, April 15 , 1998,
April 15 , 1999, and April 11 , 2001 , MERALCO had until the following dates to
file its administrati ve and judicial claims:
Year Date of Payment Deadline to File Number of Years/Months Number of Years

of Tax Administrative and Late in Filing Late in Filing
Judicial Claims Admini strati ve Claim Judicial Clai m
1994 April 7, 1995 April 7, 1997 6 yrs, 7 months & 20 days 8 yrs & 27 days
2000 April 11 , 2001 April 11 , 2003 7 months & 16 days 2 yrs & 23 days
Records show, however, that it was only on November 27, 2003 that
MERALCO filed with the CIR its administrative claim for refund or tax credit
of excess income tax payments for the years mentioned, and it was only on May
(MJ_
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 15
DECISION
4, 2005 that MERALCO filed its judicial claim for refund or credit with this
Court in Division. Clearly, both the administrative and judicial claims were
filed way beyond the two (2)-year prescriptive period.
The two (2)-vear prescriptive period

under Section 229 is mandatory
Section 229 provides:
"SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroenously or Illegally

Collected.
XXX XXX
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after

the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax
or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after
payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even
without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on
the face of the return upon which payment was made, such
payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid". (Emphasis
supplied)
Corollary thereto, the last sentence of Section 3 (a) (2) , Rule 4 of the 2005
Revised Rules of the CTA, as amended, provides: "xxx Provided, still further,
that in the case of claims for refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected,
the taxpayer must file a petition for review with the Court prior to the
expiration of the two-year period under Section 229 of the National
Internal Revenue Code".

C.T.A. EB NO. 773 16
DECISION
It is clear from the above provisions that Section 229 uses the phrase
"shall be filed" and not "may be filed", while Section 3 (a) (2) , Rule 4 of the
2005 Revised Rules of the CTA, as amended, uses the phrase "must file" and not
"may file", which clearly show that the two (2)-year period to file the claim for
refund or credit is mandatory, and not merely permissive. The use of the words
"shall" and "must" is imperative, operating to impose a duty. This is a settled
rule in this jurisdiction.
Section 229 o(the 1997 NIRC does not provide

(or any exception to give way to special
circumstances to justify relaxation o(the rule
We find it hard to agree with the ruling of the Second Division that
MERALCO is entitled to its claim for tax refund or credit for taxable years
1994-1998 and 2000 due to the special circumstance in the instant case and that
the two (2)-year prescriptive period should commence to run only on May 5,
2003, the date the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 141314 and
141369 had become final and executory, as it was only at that time that the right
to claim for a tax refund or credit had become determinable and the basis for the
excessive or erroneous payment had arisen.
As the former CTA En Bane had previously ruled in the Atlanta case,
Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, does not provide for any
exception or qualification. However, as regards corporate income taxes, the

C.T.A. EB NO. 773 17
DECISION
provision of Section 229 in filing claims for refund of erroneously, illegally,
excessively and wrongfully collected income taxes should be correlated with the
provisions of Sections 75 and 76 of the same Code requiring corporations to file
quarterly income tax returns and final adjustment returns, respectively. Hence,
as regards corporate income taxes, the two (2)-year prescriptive period under
Section 229 to file erroneously, illegally, excessively and wrongfully collected
taxes should be reckoned from the date of filing of the final adjustment return
and payment of the tax thereof. In all other cases, the reckoning point of the
two (2)-year prescriptive period should be from the date of payment of the tax
or penalty, regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment.
The two (2)-year period, therefore, cannot be stretched to allow for other special
circumstances, when none has been provided. Where the law speaks in clear and
categorical language, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for
application (Cebu Portland Cement Company vs. Municipality of Naga, Cebu, 24 SCRA
712). The Court may not construe a statute that is free from doubt (Commissioner
of Internal Revenue vs. American Express International, Inc. (Philippine Branch), 462 SCRA
220).
With the inclusion o(the phrase "regardless of

any supervening cause that may arise a{ter
payment", the intention o(the law is to provide
a condition sine qua non that all claims (or
refund of erroneously, illegally, excessively or
C.T.A . EB NO . 773 18
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
wrongfully collected taxes or penalty shall be

filed within two (2) vears {rom the date of
payment o(the tax or penalty
It must be stressed that the phrase "regardless of any supervening cause"
was incorporated by P.D. No. 69 ( "Amending Certain Sections of the National
Internal Revenue Code''), which took effect on January 1, 1973 , and said phrase
had been carried over both in the 1977 Tax Code and NIRC of 1997, as
amended. The phrase having been carried over in every revision of the NIRC,
the lawmaker's intention to establish as a condition sine qua non that all claims
for refund of erroneously or illegally collected NIRC tax, penalty claimed
without authority, and sum excessively or wrongfully collected, shall be filed
within two years from the date of the payment of the tax or penalty, is very
evident. The two (2)-year period shall always be reckoned from the date of
payment of the tax regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after
payment.
This is because the rationale behind the two (2)-year prescriptive period
is the basic principle that "taxes are the lifeblood of the nation". Thus, in the
case of Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 302 SCRA 250, the Supreme Court ruled:
"Basic is the principle that ' taxes are the lifeblood of the
nation. ' The primary purpose is to generate funds for the State to
finance the needs of the citizenry and to advance the common weal.
~
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 19
DECISION
Due process of law under the Constitution does not require judicial
proceedings in tax cases. This must necessarily be so because it is
upon taxation that the government chiefly relies to obtain the
means to carry on its operations and it is of utmost importance that
the modes adopted to enforce the collection of taxes levied should
be summary and interfered with as little as possible.
From the same perspective, claims for refund or tax credit

should be exercised within the time fixed by law because the BIR
being an administrative body enforced to collect taxes, its functions
should not be unduly delayed or hampered by incidental matters".
Without the strict observance of the two (2)-year prescriptive period, the
government will always be at the losing end, refunding taxes whenever
supervening cause arises even after the expiration of the two (2)-year period,
thus making the phrase "regardless of any supervening cause" futile and
inoperative.
Therefore, MERALCO's claim for refund should have been filed within
the two (2)-year prescribed period, reckoned from the dates the income taxes
thereon had been paid, and not from May 5, 2003, the date the decision of the
Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369 had become final and
executory. MERALCO's appeals to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme
Court are both extraneous matters that occurred after payment of the tax, hence,
not relevant in determining the prescriptive period.~

C.T.A. EB NO . 773 20
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
The rule on solutio indebiti cannot be applied

toMERALCO
MERALCO cannot invoke the rule of solutio indebiti to justify its claim
for refund.
In the case of Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Sarmiento, 484 SCRA
271, the Supreme Court held:
"There is solutio indebiti where: (1) payment is made when

there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty
to pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) the
payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or
some other cause. x x x The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti is
based on the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself
unjustly at the expense of another" (Power Commercial and Industrial
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. I 19745, Jun e 20, 1997, 274 SCRA
59 7, 612, 61 3) .
Pursuant to the above ruling, the elements of solutio indebiti are: ( 1)
payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who
has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) the
payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other
cause.
Both elements are lacking in the present case. First, there exists a binding
relation between MERALCO and the CIR. MERALCO is a taxpayer obligated
to pay income taxes on the income it declared in its income tax returns for the
years 1994-1998 and 2000. Second, there is no mistake on the part of

&JJ1
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 21
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
MERALCO when it paid income taxes to the BIR for the years 1994-1998 and
2000. MERALCO was fully aware ofthe status of its application for revision of
its rate schedule and the proceedings that transpired thereafter. It was fully
aware that the increase granted to it in the ERB Order dated January 28, 1994
was merely provisional and subject to the condition that after hearing and
evaluation, should MERALCO be entitled to a lesser increase in rates, all excess
collected by MERALCO shall be refunded to its customers or credited to their
future consumption. At the outset, when the ERB provisionally granted and
subjected to a condition its application for increase, MERALCO should have
known the consequences of a possible reduction of its application.
Thusly:
"Neither can we hold PEA liable based on solutio indebiti,

the legal maxim that no one should enrich itself at the expense of
another. As we explained in Powton Conglomerate, Inc. vs.
Agcolicol,
'the principle of unjust enrichment cannot be validly invoked

by the respondent who, through his own act or omission, took the
risk of being denied payment for additional costs by not giving the
petitioners prior notice of such costs and/or by not securing their
written consent thereto, as required by law and their contract.'
xxx xxx" (Uy vs. Public Estates Authority, 589 SCRA 20) .
In fact, even in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Acesite
(Philippines) Hotel Corporation, 516 SCRA 102-103, cited by MERALCO in

~
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 22
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
support of its claim for refund or credit on the ground of equity considerations,
the Supreme Court declared:
"When money is paid to another under the influence of a

mistake of fact, that is to say, on the mistaken supposition of the
existence of a specific fact, where it would not have been known
that the fact was otherwise, it may be recovered. The ground upon
which the right of recovery rests is that money paid through
misapprehension of facts belongs in equity and in good conscience
to the person who paid it" (4 Am. Jur. 514) .
Thus, pursuant to the above rulings of the Supreme Court, there is no
mistake of fact on the part of MERALCO. MERALCO, therefore, cannot
validly invoke the provision of unjust enrichment.
Equitv applies only in the absence o(law
We cannot likewise agree with the Second Division's ruling that "if the
circumstances warrant, the interpretation on the law on prescription may be
relaxed for equitable reason".
Basic is the rule that equity is applied only in the absence of, and never
against statutory law or judicial rules of procedure (Mendio la vs. Court of Appeals,
258 SCRA 502). Thus:
"While equity which has been aptly described as 'justice

outside legality' is applied only in the absence of, and never
against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. Positive rules
prevail over all abstract arguments based on equity contra legem.
For all its conceded merit, equity is available only in the absence
of law and not as its replacement" (Parents-Teachers Association (PTA)
~
C.T.A. EB NO. 773 23
DECISION
of St. Mathew Christian Academy vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 614
SCRA 61-62).
Verily, equity will operate only in cases where there are no applicable
law or rule or when the provisions and interpretation of the law are doubtful,
which is not obtaining in this case.
In this case, considering the clear and explicit provision of Section 229 of
the NIRC of 1997, as amended, equity will not apply; otherwise, it would be
tantamount to overruling or supplanting the express provision of the law.
All the foregoing considered, we have no alternative, but to deny
MERALCO's claim for refund for having been filed way beyond the two (2)-
year prescribed period. The decision appealed from must, therefore, be
reversed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is
hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated December 6, 2010 and
Resolution dated April 15, 2011 rendered by the Second Division in C.T.A.
Case No. 7242 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for
Review filed by MERALCO in C.T.A. Case No. 7242 is hereby DISMISSED
for having been filed way beyond the two (2)-year prescribed period.
SO ORDERED.
~A~-~ Associate Justice

C.T.A. EB NO. 773 24
(C.T.A. CASE NO . 7242)
DECISION
WE CONCUR:
L-u.- o~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Associate Justice
Q_~,;, c.. ~~ ~ .
<{With Separate Concurring o(fl'ifi~n)
JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.
Associate Justice Assoc ate Justice
(I join Justi~ R. Bautista's
ER~UY
Dissenting Opinion)
CAESAR A. CASANOVA
As~~~~ice Associate Justice
~ N .M~~,CnJL
(I join the Dissenting Opinion of
Justice Lovell R. Bautista)
CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA
Associate Justice
~~~4-4-
(1 join the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Lovell R. Bautista)
AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the above Decision has been reached in consultation with the
members of the Court En Bane before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
L~ - v~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Justice
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
ENBANC
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Petitioner, CTA EB No. 773
(CTA Case No. 7242)
Present:
Acosta, P.J.,
Castaneda, Jr.,
-versus- Bautista,
Uy,
Casanova,
Palanca-Enriquez,
Fa bon-Victorino,
Mindaro-Grulla, and
Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,
INC.,
Respondent. Promulgated:
!lf<l/t~~
MAY 0 B2012 /,:\;"o ~-~ ,
,
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
CASTANEDA, JR., J.:
I concur in the decision penned by Associate Justice Olga Palanca-
Enriquez and vote to GRANT the Petition for Review based on the grounds set
forth in the decision and on the following grounds:
I. The claim has already prescribed. ft-

Separate Concurring Opinion
CTA EB No. 773 (CTA Case No. 7242)
Page 2 of 18
a. Claims for refund should be exercised within the prescriptive

period fixed under Section 229 of 1997 NIRC regardless of any
supervening cause that may arise after payment;
b. Rationale behind the two (2)-year prescriptive period rests on

the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the nation and
sound taxation calls for fiscal adequacy;
c. Meralco's overcharges from 1994-1998 and 2000 were actually

received and recognized as income in the said years. Income is
taxable in the year realized and not in the year when court
litigation has ended involving the same income. Accordingly,
prescription in refund begins to run upon recognition of income;
and
d. The final termination of the litigation was not considered to be

relevant or critical in determining the period to file refund in
case of overpayment or in determining the period to recognize
income.
11. The claim was not duly proven.
a. The granting of refund cannot be made to depend upon the

happening of a condition or a contingency.
I.
The claim has already prescribed.
I.a Claims for refund should be

exercised within the
prescriptive period fixed by
law regardless of any
supervening cause as
emphatically provided under
Section 229 of 1997 NIRC
In a claim for refund, a taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a
refund but also his compliance with the procedural due process as non-
observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and ~
Page 3 of 18
1
the judicial claims would result in the denial of his claim. Section 229 of the
1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) allows the taxpayer a period of two
(2) years from date of payment of the tax regardless of any supervening
cause within which to file a claim for refund. This provision, which is,
mandatory, is not subject to any qualification, and, hence, it applies regardless of

2
the conditions under which the payment has been made. The said provision
categorically states:
SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or

Illegally Collected. - No suit or proceeding shall be
maintained in any court for the recovery of any national
internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any
penalty claimed to have been collected without authority,
or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any
manner wrongfully collected until a claim for refund or
credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such
suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not
such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or
duress.
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be

filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the
date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of
any supervening cause that may arise after
payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner
may, even without a written claim therefore, refund or
credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which
payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have
been erroneously paid. (emphasis ours)
The law is clear and unambiguous. Under the verba legis rule, if the words
of the law are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal j€=-
1
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company ofAsia, Inc., G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 20 10, 632
SCRA 422.
2
Guagua Electric Light Plant Co., Inc. vs. Collector of internal Revenue, G.R. No. 14421 , April 29, 196 1, I SCRA
1221, 1225.
CfA EB No. 773 (CfA Case No. 7242)
Page 4 of 18
3
meaning and applied without any interpretation, the need for interpretation is
4
obviated, no plausible pretense being entertained to justify non-compliance. All
that has to be done is to apply it in every case that falls within its terms. 5
Applying the above provision to the instant case, prescription has already
set in, both in the administrative level (November 27, 2003) and judicial level
(May 4, 2005) for the taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000. As expressly stated by
law, the two (2)-year prescriptive period has already lapsed reckoned from the
date of payment of the tax without consideration to any supervening cause that
may arise after payment.
I.b Rationale behind the two (2)

year prescriptive rests on the
principle that taxes are the
lifeblood of the nation and
sound taxation calls for fiscal
adequacy.
The advent of the phrase "regardless of any supervening cause"
espouses the rationale behind the two (2)-year prescriptive period which rests on
the basic principles that "taxes are the lifeblood of the nation." Corollarily, a
sound taxation requires that there is fiscal adequacy. The proceeds of tax
revenue should coincide with, and approximate the needs of, government~
3
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, G.R. No. 1596 10, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA
398.
4
Carmelino F. Pansacola vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 15999 1, November 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 8 1
citing the case of Allied Brokerage Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, No. L- 2764 1, August 3 1, 197 1, 40
SC RA 555, 559, 560.
5
Ibid.
Page 5 of 18
expenditures. Neither an excess nor a deficiency of revenue vis-a-vis the needs
of government would be in keeping with the principle. 6
In the case of Atlanta Land Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal

7
Revenue the CTA En Bane denied the claim for refund for being time-barred.
The court disregarded the supervening causes such as the rescission of dacion
en pago arrangement and subsequent enactment of RA 9182 or "The Special
Purpose Vehicle Act" in reckoning the 2-year prescriptive period. The court
explained that the availability of funds from the collection of taxes cannot
forever be left subject to the contingency of refund brought about by
certain acts which are solely within the exclusive control of the private
contracting parties, otherwise, fiscal adequacy cannot be achieved. 8
Without the strict observance of the prescriptive period, the government will
always be at the losing end, refunding the taxes whenever supervening cause
arises even after the expiration of the two (2)-yea r period and making the
phrase "regardless of any supervening cause" futile and inoperative. In
addition, claims for refund or tax credit should be exercised within the time fixed
by law because the BIR being an administrative body enforced to collect taxes,
its functions should not be unduly delayed or hampered by incidental matters. 9 ft--
6
Vitug and Acosta, Tax Law and Jurisprudence, Third Edition, page 2.
7
C.T.A. EB No. 79, May 23, 2006. Penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., with Presiding Justice
Ernesto D. Acosta, Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, and Olga Palanca-
Enriquez, concurring. Affirmed in G.R. No. 172773 dated June 18, 2007.
8
/bid.
9
Philippine Bank ofCommunications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 112024, January 28, 1999,302
SCRA 241, 250.
Page 6 of 18
In the recent case of United States vs. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. et
a!., 10 (Clintwood case) US Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that the US
Internal Revenue Code which provides for a two (2) and three (3)-year period of
limitations in a claim for refund prevails over the longer period of limitations
under the Tucker Act. In the said case, the taxpayers sought the refund of coal
taxes which was later on ruled as unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court
explained the rationale of the period of limitation in a claim for tax refund in this
wise:
The Code further establishes a time limit for filing

such a refund claim with the IRS: To receive a "refund of
an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect
of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return," a
refund claim must be filed no later than "3 years from the
time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax
was paid, whichever of such period expires the later."
§6511(a). And §6511(b)(1) mandates that " [n]o credit or
refund shall be allowed or made" if a claim is not filed
within the time limits set forth in §6511(a). "Read
together, the import of these sections is clear: unless a
claim for refund of a tax has been filed within the time
limits imposed by §6511(a), a suit for refund ... may not be
maintained in any court." Dalm/ supra, at 602.
XXX XXX XXX
Indeed, we all but decided the question presented

over six decades ago in United States v. A.S. Kreider Co.,
313 U.S. 443 (1941). Section 1113(a) of the Revenue Act
of 1926, like the refund claim provision in §7422(a) of the
current Code, prescribed that "[n]o suit or proceeding shall
be maintained in any court for the recovery of any
internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or
illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to
have been collected without authority, or of any sum
alleged to have been excessive or in any manner
wrongfully collected until a claim for refund or credit has
been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal jc-
10 No. 07-308, Apri l 15, 2008, 553 U.S._ (2008), http ://www.supremeco urt. gov/op ini ons/07pd f/07-308.pdf
Page 7 of 18
Revenue," and established a time limit for bringing suit

once the claim-filing requirement had been met. 44 Stat.
116. Like the companies here, A.S. Kreider had failed to
file a tax-refund action within that limitations period. See
313 U.S., at 446. And, like the companies here, A.S.
Kreider argued that it was instead subject only to the
longer 6-year statute of limitations under the Tucker Act.
!d., at 447.
We rejected the claim, holding that the Tucker Act

limitations period "was intended merely to place an outside
limit on the period within which all suits must be initiated"
under that Act, and that "Congress left it open to provide
less liberally for particular actions which, because of
special considerations, required different treatment." Ibid.
We held that the limitations period in §1113(a) was
"precisely that type of provision," finding that
Congress created a shorter statute of limitations for
tax claims because "suits against the United States
for the recovery of taxes impede effective
administration of the revenue laws. Ibid. If such
suits were allowed to be brought subject only to
the 6-year limitations period in the Tucker Act, we
explained, §1113(a) would have "no meaning
whatever." !d., at 448. So too here. The refund scheme
in the current Code would have "no meaning whatever" if
taxpayers failing to comply with it were nonetheless
allowed to bring suit subject only to the Tucker Act's
longer time bar.
XXX XXX XXX
In any event, we see no constitutional problem at

all. Congress has indeed established a detailed refund
scheme that subjects complaining taxpayers to various
requirements before they can bring suit. This scheme is
designed "to advise the appropriate officials of the
demands or claims intended to be asserted, so as to
insure an orderly administration of the revenue,"
United States v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272
(1931), to provide that refund claims are made
promptly, and to allow the IRS to avoid
unnecessary litigation by correcting conceded
errors. Even when the constitutionality of a tax is
challenged, taxing authorities do in fact have an
"exceedingly strong interest in financial stability,"
McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and
Tobacco, Fla. Dept of Business Regulation, 496 U.S. 18, ~
Page 8 of 18
37 (1990), an interest they may pursue through

provisions of the sort at issue here. 11 (emphasis ours)
)()()( )()()( )()()(
It is to be noted that the US Supreme Court strictly applied the period of
limitation under its tax code despite the constitutional nature of the taxpayer's
claim. The taxpayer succumbed to an unconstitutional tax, and sought recourse
only after it has been unlawfully exacted. 12 Nonetheless, the US Supreme Court
rejected the claim for failure to comply with the refund scheme and for being
time-barred. It ruled that unconstitutional taxation claim is also subject to
prescriptive period just as any other claim can, it says:
The outcome here is clear given the language of

the pertinent provisions. Title 26 U.S.C. §7422(a) states
that "[n]o suit .. . shall be maintained in any court for the
recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any
penalty claimed to have been collected without authority,
or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any
manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund ... has
been duly filed with" the IRS. (Emphasis added.) Here the
companies did not file a refund claim with the IRS for the
1994-1996 taxes, and therefore may bring "[n]o suit" in
"any court" to recover "any internal revenue tax" or "any
sum " alleged to have been wrongfully collected " in any
manner." Five "any's" in one sentence and it begins to
seem that Congress meant the statute to have expansive
reach.
Moreover, the time limits for filing administrative

refund claims in §6511-set forth in an "unusually emphatic
form," United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 350
(1997)-apply to "any tax imposed by this title," 26 U.S.C.
§6511(a) (emphasis added). The statute further provides
that "[n]o credit or refund shall be allowed or made after
the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed?"
11
Supra note I 0.
12
Supra note I 0.
Page 9 of 18
subsection (a) ... unless a claim for credit or refund is filed

by the taxpayer within such period." §6511(b)(1). Again,
this language on its face plainly covers the companies'
claim for a "refund" of "tax[es] imposed by" Title 26,
specifically 26 U.S.C. §4121. The companies argue that
these statutory provisions are ambiguous, Brief for
Respondents 43-45, but we cannot imagine what language
could more clearly state that taxpayers seeking refunds of
unlawfully assessed taxes must comply with the Code's
refund scheme before bringing suit, including the
requirement to file a timely administrative claim.
XXX XXX XXX
The companies do not argue for such an exemption
simply because their claims are based on a constitutional
violation. As they acknowledge, id., at 34, a
"constitutional claim can become time barred just
as any other claim can," Block v. North Dakota ex rei.
Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 292
(1983). xxx (emphasis ours)
xxx We see no reason why compliance with

straightforward administrative requirements and
reasonable time limits to seek a refund once a tax has
been paid should lead to a different result. 13
XXX XXX XXX
l.c Meralco's overcharges from

1994-1998 and 2000 were
actually received and
recognized in the said years.
Income is taxable in the year
realized and not in the year
when court litigation has
ended involving the same
income. Accordingly,
prescription in refund begins
to run upon recognition of
income.
When Meralco received the provisional increase imposed upon its
consumers, it unqualifiedly asserted its right over the amount and voluntarily )k-
13
Supra note I 0.
Page 10 of 18
reported the same as income, hence, prescription begins to run when petitioner
recognizes income from overcharges.
In the claim-of-right doctrine, if a taxpayer receives money or other
property and treats it as its own under the claim of right that the payments are
made absolutely and not contingently, such amounts are included in the
taxpayer's income, even though the right to the income has not been perfected
at that time. It does not matter that the taxpayer's title to the property is in
dispute and that the property may later be recovered from the taxpayer. 14
In American jurisprudence, the claim-of-right doctrine was applied in
several cases involving public utilities one of which is the case of Brooklyn Union
15
Gas Co. v. Comm./ 62 F2d 505 (CCA2 1933) (Brooklyn case). Brooklyn the
utility company, in the course of rate dispute, had certain funds made available
to it by an interlocutory order of court, subject to the taxpayer's posting of a
security bond or securities of equal value. The taxpayer preferred not to take the
funds on such conditions, and instead took them at the conclusion of litigation
two years later. The taxpayer realized income in the earlier year under the claim-
of-right rule, because the taxpayer had the power to secure the release of the
funds, that is, there remained no effective restriction upon the taxpayer's
dominion over them. In the present case, Meralco actually received and ~
14
Merten 's The Law of Federal Income Taxation , Section 12A. l45, Volume 2, (1995) citing Safety Tube Corp. v.
Comm., 8 TC 757 (1947), atfd 168 F2d 787 (CCA6 1948); Westover Co. v. Smyth, 43 AFTR 1283 (ND Cal 1951),
citing Mertens text; Johns v. Comm ., TC Memo 1956-119; Mensik v. Comm., 37 TC 703 (1962), affd 328 F2d 147
(CA7 1964); Marquardt Corp. v. Comm., 39 TC 443 ( 1962).
15
As cited in Merten 's The Law of Federal Income Taxation, Section 12A.l52, Volume 2, ( 1995).
Separat e Concurring Opinion
Page 11 of 18
unconditionally recognized income from 1994-1998 and 2000, hence, it is with
more reason that the claim of right applies to Meralco.
Under this doctrine, if the taxpayer who has included amounts in
income pursuant to the claim-of-right doctrine subsequently repays
those amounts. the taxpayer may be entitled to a deduction in the year
of repayment. 16 However, to be entitled to a deduction, the taxpayer
must meet the requirements of a statutory provision entitling him or
her to a deduction. 17 For instance, it must qualify as a trade or business
expense xxx, 18 or as a loss. 19
In the case of S. Lowenstein & Son Inc. v. Comm., 21 TC 648, affd 222
0
F2d 919 (CA6 1955)/ it was ruled that the taxpayer's renunciation in a
subsequent year of income received under claim of right does not
defeat the earlier inclusion, but enables only the deduction in that
subsequent year.
These American cases have persuasive effect in our jurisdiction, because
Philippine income tax law is patterned after its US counterpart. 21 The local
application of the claim of right doctrine was explained in the book Philippine~
16
Supra note 15, Section 12A.146 citing Gaddis v. US., 330 F Supp 74 1 (D Miss 1971 ).
17
Supra note 15, Section 12A. 146 citing E.g., IRC Section 162(a). See Grandview Mines v. Comm., 32 TC 759 ( 1959),
affd 282 F2d 700 (CA9 1060); Berger v. Comm. , 37 TC 1026 (1962). See also Equitable Life Ins. Co. oflowa v. U.S.,
340 F2d 9 (CA8 1965); National Life & Accident Ins. Co v. U.S., 244 F Supp 135 (MD Tenn 1965), citing Mertens
text, affd 385 F2d 832 (CA6 1967) (deductions under life insurance companies' provisions of the Code).
18
Ibid., citing Oswald v. Comm., 49 TC 645 ( 1968).
19
Ibid., citing Comm. V. Switlik, 184 F2d 299 (CA3 1950); O ' Meara v. Comm., 8 TC 622 ( 1947).
20
As cited in Merten 's The Law of Federal Income Taxation, Section 12A. I46, Volume 2, (1995).
21
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 148191 , November 25, 2003, 416 SCRA
436, 453.
GA EB No. 773 (GA Case No. 7242)
Page 12 of 18
22
Income Tax citing the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Javier,
Jr., 23 among others, to wit:
3. Claim of right doctrine. - A taxable gain is

conditioned upon the presence of a claim of right to the
alleged gain and the absence of a definite unconditional
obligation to return or repay that which would otherwise
constitute gain. To collect a tax would give the
government an unjustified preference as to the part of the
money that rightfully and completely belongs to the victim.
The embezzlers title is void. (Commissioner vs. Wilcox, 286
u.s. 41~ 424) .
xxx "The taxpayer was the recipient of some money from
abroad which he presumed to be a gift but turned out to
be an 'error' and is now subject of litigation" but did not
declare it as income. The court ruled that the amount
received is income subject to tax, but the tax return filed
cannot be considered as fraudulent because petitioner
literally "laid his cards on the table" for respondent to
examine. Error or mistake of fact or law is not fraud
(Commissioner vs. Javier, G.R. No. 71479, July 31, 1991,
199 SCRA 824).
Award of damages by lower court is taxable despite

possibility of repayment in case judgment is
reversed by appellate court. - If a taxpayer obtains
earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as
to its disposition, he has received income which he is
required to include in his tax return, even though it may be
claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and
even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its
equivalent. Thus, where a taxpayer sued and was awarded
damages by the trial court, and the award was received
pending appeal, the money received is includible in his
gross income, notwithstanding the possibility of repayment
in case the judgment would be reversed by the appellate
court (North American Oil Consolidated vs. Burnett, 286
u.s. 417). ~z--
22
Victori no C. Mamalateo, 20 I 0 edition, pages 79-80.
23
G.R. No. 78953, Ju ly 3 1, 199 1, 199 SCRA 824.
Page 13 of 18
In this case, by virtue of the claim-of-right doctrine and consistent with
the recognition of income and deduction under the NIRC of 1997, Meralco
recognized a bona fide claim over the amounts received out of its overcharged
rate as early as 1995 and not when the Decision of the Supreme Court became
final on 2003. It is proper that the overcharges be taxed at the time of income
recognition. A fortiori, the two (2)-year prescriptive period for filing a claim for
refund should be reckoned from the time when income was recognized, i.e. "the
date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that
24
may arise after payment xxx. "
l.d The final termination of the

litigation was not considered
to be relevant or critical in
determining the period to file
refund in case of
overpayment or in
determining the period to
recognize income.
In the case of North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417
5
(1932)/ (North American case) the United States Supreme Court held that
North American became entitled to the funds in 1917 under a claim of right, the
year when it received funds subject of ongoing litigation NOT in the year 1922
when the case was finally resolved . Such rule gave substance to the annual
accounting period as it afforded finality to the tax year by not holding it open J-c--
24
Section 229 ofthe 1997 NIRC.
25
Cited by Sanford M. Guerin and Philip F. Postlewaite, Problems and Materials in Federal Income Taxation , Fourth
Edition, 1994, pages 824-826.
Page 14 of 18
until the eventual resolution of the dispute. 26 Following this argument, the
reckoning of the two (2)-year prescriptive period under Section 229 of 1997
NIRC shou ld all the more apply in this case counting from the filing of ITR and
payment of tax because Meralco declared the overcharges as income even
before the Supreme Court decided the case with finality. Meralco's provisional
increase was undeniably treated as income thereby forming part of Meralco's
taxable income in the year of receipt.
For taxable year 1994, the reckoning of the two (2)-year period should be
on April 7, 1995 when Meralco unqualifiedly recognized the overcharges as
income. The same applies for succeeding taxable years as shown below:
Date Actually Filed

Taxable Date annual
Year ITR filed and Administrative Judicial claim Judicial claim
tax paid claim (Original) (Amended)
1994 7 April 1995 27 November 27, May 4, 2005 November 22,
2003 2005
1995 15 April 1996 Ltl -do- -do- -do-
29
1996 15 April 1997 -do- -do- -do-
30
1997 15 April 1998 -do- -do- -do-
31
1998 13 April 1999 -do- -do- -do-
2000 11 April 2001 jL -do- -do- -do-
26
Ibid.
27
Respondent' s Formal Offer of Evidence, Exhibit "FF"
28
Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence, Exhibit " II"
29
Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence, Exhibit " LL"
30
Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence, Exhibit "00"
31
Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence, Exhibit " RR"
32
Respondent' s Formal Offer of Ev idence, Exhibit "XX"
Page 15 of 18
Granting without conceding that the claim-of-right doctrine does not
apply, then petitioner should NOT have recognized the overcharges as income
from the time it filed its annual ITRs. American jurisprudence, having persuasive
effect in our jurisdiction, dictates that in order to avoid the application of the
claim-of-right doctrine, a taxpayer must in the year of receipt at least establish
its obligation to repay the amount received and make provision for repayment.
Establishment of a merely contingent obligation to repay will not suffice. 33 In
this case, Meralco unconditionally recognized the overcharges as income from
the time it filed its annual ITRs. It already claimed a right over an income
knowing fully well the uncertainty and possible reversal of its case before the
Supreme Court. When it took the risk of imposing higher rates to its consumers,
it also assumed the risk of paying excess income taxes bearing in mind that the
prescriptive period for refund disregards any supervening cause that may arise
after payment.
Moreover, it is to be noted that in cited cases of Clintwooft North
American and Brooklyn, the final termination of the litigation was not considered
to be relevant or critical in determining the period to file refund in case of
overpayment or in determining the period to recognize income. If at all,
termination of the litigation merely determined whether or not there is right to
retain income already received. ~
33
As cited in Merten ' s The Law of Federal Income Taxation , Section 12A. I50, Volume 2, ( 1995) citing Nordberg v.
Comm., 79 TC 655 ( 1982), affd 720 F2d 658 (CA l 1983), quoting Hope v. Comm ., 55 TC 1020 (197 1), affd 471 F2d
738 (CA3 1972), cert den 4 14 US 824 ( 1973).
Page 16 of 18
II.
The claim was not duly proven.
II.a The granting of refund cannot

be made to depend upon the
happening of a condition or a
contingency.
Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are
regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi

34
juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption. Thus, the burden of
proof is upon him who claims the exemption in his favor and he must be able to
justify his claim by the clearest grant of organic or statute law and cannot be
35
permitted to exist upon vague implications. Since tax refunds partake of the
nature of tax exemptions, which are construed strictissimi juris against the
taxpayer, evidence in support of a claim must likewise be strictissimi scrutinized
36
and duly proven.
Assuming without conceding, Meralco's claim has not yet prescribed, the
claim is at best premature and would still fail with respect to the overcharges not
yet refunded to petitioner's consumers. The amount to be refunded has not yet
been fully returned to the consumers. In Meralco's Notes to Financial jk-
34
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., G. R. No. 127 105, Ju ne 25, 1999,309 SCRA 87,
I 08 citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Tokyo Shipping Co., Ltd., 244 SCRA 332; Province of Tar lac vs.
Alcantara, 2 16 SCRA 790, Magsaysay Lines, Inc. vs. Court ofAppeals, 260 SCRA 5 13.
35
Ibid.
36
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Far East Bank & Trust Co. (now BPI), G.R. No. 173854, March 15, 20 10,
6 15 SCRA 4 17, 43 1 citing Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Comm issioner of Internal
Revenue, G. R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 150, 163.
Page 17 of 18
Statements37 for the year ended December 31, 2007, assuming the previous
payments were indeed repaid, there remained an estimated balance of P14,396M
not yet refunded.
Moreso, the refund is subject to a condition that the overcharges should
have been actually given or credited to future consumption of Meralco's
consumers. Meralco admitted that some of the electric service accounts of its
consumers entitled to refund are terminated, hence, it acceded to the
probability that the entire gross refund amount of P30,230,092,522.39 may not
be fully refunded or credited to future consumption. 38 This only shows that the
instant case would still fail due to insufficiency of evidence to determine whether
the total amount was actually repaid to Meralco's consumers.
The determination of the amount repaid is necessary in granting this tax
refund otherwise the government would be in a position of refunding an income
tax, the tax base of which is still within the coffers of Meralco and may or may
not be repaid to its consumers. Until and unless repayment can be ascertained,
Meralco's overcharges are still considered income under the claim of right
doctrine, thus, the claim for refund under this situation must fail.
In light of the foregoing, I vote to GRANT the "Petition for Review" filed
by Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and accordingly REVERSE and SET ASIDE)k-
37
Respondent' s Formal Offer of Evidence, Exhibit " PPP"
38
Respondent' s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Clarification, Division docket p. 1259.
Page 18 of 18
the Decision dated December 6, 2010 and Resolution dated April 15, 2011
rendered by the CTA Second Division.
a~~e~u
~UANITO C. CASTANEDA,<IJR~ -
Associate Justice
Court of Tax Appeals
QUEZON CITY
En Bane
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB CASE NO. 773

REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 7242)
Petitioner,
Present:
Acosta, P.J.
Castaneda, Jr.,
Bautista,
-versus- Uy,
Casanova,
Palanca-Enriquez,
Fabon-Victorino,
Mindaro-Gntlla, and
Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Promulgated :

Respondent. 61lf~
MAY 0 8 2012 /,'lfo /'/~,
X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
I DISSENTING OPINION
BAUTISTA,[.:
Applying the basic postulate that no one should unjustly enrich himself at
the expense of anotl1er, the caveat likewise covers the government,! the return of
what was erroneously paid - respondent's right to claim for refund - emanates
. from the said principle, and not from Section 229 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended.
In conh·ast to the disquisition made by the majority, I find the Petition for
Review bereft of merit.
1 Conunissioner of Internal Rev enue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation [Formerly Southern Energy Quezon,
Inc.]. G.R. No. 172129, September 12, 2008, 565 SCRA 154, citing Commissioner of lntemal Revenue v. Fireman 's
Fnmi ln'"mna CD., No. L-30644, M"d' 9, 1987, 148 SCRA 315. ~
DISSENTING OPINION
CT A EB CASE NO. 773 (CT A Case No. 7242)
Page 2 of 11
Section 229 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC"), as
amended, provides in part, to quote:
SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. - xxx
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the

expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or
penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after
payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without
a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of
the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears
clearly to have been erroneously paid.
It is h·ue that the above-quoted provision explicitly states that "[i]n any case,
no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date
of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after
payment," the factual milieu surrounding the case at bench, however, deserves this
Court's recognition as well.
Based on the records of the case, on January 28, 1994, the then Energy
Regulatory Board ("ERB") issued an Order, docketed as ERB Case No. 93-118,
which states as follows :
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in accordance with

Section 8 of Executive Order No. 172 and the applicable provisions of
the Public Service Act, as amended, this Board hereby provisionally
authorizes applicant Manila Electric Company to adopt and
implement the attached rate schedules embodying the
aforementioned rate adjustment in the average amount of 18.4
centavos per kwh, effective with respect to applicant's billing cycles
beginning February 1994.
In the event, however, that the Board finds, after hearing and
r
submission by the Commission on Audit of an audit report on the
books and records of account of the applicant, that the latter is entitled
to a lesser increase in rates, all excess amounts collected from the
applicant's customers as a result of this Order shall be refunded
'.
DISSENTING OPINION
Page 3 of 11
them or correspondingly credited in their favor for application to

elech·ic bills covering future consumptions.
XXX XXX XXX
SO ORDERED. 2 (Boldfacing supplied.)
On February 16, 1998, the ERB rendered a Decision, to quote:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board hereby

authorizes applicant Manila Elech·ic Company to adopt and implement
a rate adjustment in the average amount of ~0 . 017 per kilowatthour,
effective with respect to applicant's billing cycles beginning February
1994. Accordingly, the provisional relief in the amount of ~0.184 per
kilowatthour granted under the Board's Order dated January 28, 1994
is hereby superseded and modified and the excess average amount of
~0 . 167 per kilowatthour starting with the applicant's billing cycles
begiri.ning February 1994 until its billing cycles beginning Februmy
1998, be refunded to applicant's customers or correspondingly credited
in their favor for future consumption. For purposes of refund,
MERALCO is hereby directed to submit to this Board, within ten (10)
days from receipt hereof, the following data: kilowatthour sales
statistics on a per customer class from February 1994 to February 1998,
bill frequency for 1997 and other pertinent data that are necessary to
implement the directives contained in this Decision.
SO ORDERED.3
On February 24, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision in the
case of Manila Electric Company v. Energy Regulatory Board, et al., docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 46888, to wit:
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby

rendered, setting aside the contested Decision insofar as it directed
reduction of the Meralco rates by an average of ~0.167 per
kilowatthour, supposedly effective after February 1998, and its refund
to the customers starting with the billing cycle from February 1994
until the billing cycle beginning February 1998.
2 Records, CT A Case No. 7242, pp . 49-50.

3 !d., at pp. 222-223.
DISSENTING OPINION
Page 4 of 11
SO ORDERED.4
Lastly, on November 15, 2002, the Supreme Court rendered the following
in the case of Republic of the Philippines, et al., v. Manila Electric Company, Inc.,
docketed as G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petitions are

GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA. G.R. SP
No. 46888 is REVERSED. Respondent MERALCO is autl1orized to
adopt a rate adjustment in the amount of P0.017 per kilowatiliour,
effective with respect to MERALCO' s billing cycles begilming Februmy
1994. Further, in accordance with the decision of the ERB dated
February 16, 1998, the excess average amount of P0.167 per
kilowatthour starting with the applicant's billing cycles beginning
February 1998 is ordered to be refunded to MERALCO's customers or
correspondingly credited in their favor for future consumption.
SO ORDERED.s (Boldfacing supplied.)
From the issuance of the ERB Order dated January 28, 1994 that respondent
MERALCO was authorized to adopt and implement the rate adjusb.nent in the
average amount of P0.184 per kilowatiliour, effective with the billing cycles
beginning February 1994, until the Supreme Court finally ruled that only a rate
adjusb.nent in the amount of P0.017 per kilowatthour is considered just and
reasonable, the case at bench may have consequences which cannot just be simply
ignored by this Court.
As observed by the Second Division of the Court in its Decision dated
December 6, 2010, "the special circumstance in the instant case demands that it be
given a different n·eab.nent. While MERALCO diligently filed its final adjusb.nent
4 !d., at p. 245 .
s /d., at p . 273 .
DISSENTING OPINION
O'A EB CASE NO. 773 (O'A Case No. 7242)
Page 5 of 11
return and paid the income tax thereon, it is beyond cavil that neither the right to
claim for refund can be determined nor there was basis for MERALCO to know
that the income tax payments for the taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000 were
erroneous and excessive. Such fact arose only when the Supreme Court's
Decision in G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369 became final and executory on May 5,
2003."6 Thus, I agree with the following disquisitions:
In the instant case, it is clear that MERALCO' s right to claim for

a tax refund for the taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000 cannot yet be
ascertained or determined at the filing of the final adjustment return.
XXX .
We are aware that equity is available only in the absence of law

and not as its replacement. Indisputably, at the time MERALCO filed
its final adjushnent return and paid the income tax thereon, the
amount being claimed for refund cannot be said to be "excessively and
wrongfully collected." It was only on May 5, 2003, that the income tax
payments for the taxable years 1994-1998 and 2000 being claimed for
refund were determined as uexcessively and wrongfully collected." 7
(Boldfacing supplied. )
The Supreme Court has in the past sanctioned the application of the
provisions on solutio indebiti in cases when taxes were collected thru error or
mistake.8 Thus, a claim for refund must be commenced within six (6) years in
accordance with Article 1145(2)9 of the Civil Code.lO
6 Rollo, p.43.
7 Ibid., p. 44.
8 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation, G.R. No. 144440,
September 1, 2004, citing Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. v. Citjt of Manila, et al., 117 Phil. 985, 989 (1963) . See also
Citibank N.A. v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 695, 713 (2001) .
9 ART. 1145. The following actions must be conunenced wiU1in six years:
I
SXX XXX XXX
(2) Upon a quasi-contract.
to Supra, note 8, citing Ramie Textiles, Inc. v. Han. Mathay, Sr., G.R. No. L-32364, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 586,
592; N•ti•MI o~Iopmrn t Comp""y v C£bu City, G. R. No. 51593, N_,., 5, 1992, 215 5CRA 382, 396.
DISSENTING OPINION
cr A EB CASE NO. 773 (Cf A Case No. 7242)
Page 6 o£11
In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fortune Tobacco
Corporation, 11 the High Tribunal aptly pem1ed as follows:
Tax exemption is a result of legislative grace. And he who

claims an exemption from the burden of taxation must justify his claim
by showing that the legislature intended to exempt him by words too
plain to be mistaken. The rule is that tax exemptions must be strictly
construed such that the exemption will not be held to be conferred
unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show
that such was the intention.
A claim for tax refund may be based on statutes granting tax

exemption or tax refund. In such case, the rule of strict interpretation
against the taxpayer is applicable as the claim for refund partakes of
the nature of an exemption, a legislative grace, which cannot be
allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language.
The taxpayer must show that the legislature intended to exempt him
from the tax by words too plain to be mistaken.
Tax refunds (or tax credits), on the other hand, are not founded
principally on legislative grace but on the legal principle which
underlies all quasi-contracts abhorring a person's unjust enrichment
at the expense of another. The dynamic of erroneous payment of tax
fits to a tee the prototypic quasi-contract, solutio indebiti, which covers
not only mistake in fact but also mistake in law.
The Government is not exempt from the application of solutio

in.debiti. Indeed, the taxpayer expects fair dealing from the
Government, and the latter has the duty to refund without any
unreasonable delay what it has erroneously collected. If the State
expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their
taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard in refunding
excess (or erroneous) payments of such taxes. It should not unjustly
enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers. (Citations omitted and
boldfacing supplied.)
In the case at bench, and for emphasis, it was only on May 5, 2003 that the
income tax payments for the subject years being claimed for refund were
determined as excessively and wrongfully collected.
tt G.R. Nos. 167274-75, July 21, 2008.

DISSENTING OPINION
CT A EB CASE NO. 773 (CIA Case No. 7242)
Page 7 ofll
Reckoning from the time the Supreme Court's ruling became final on May
5, 2003, respondent had until May 5, 2009 within which to file its claim under the
principle of solutio indebiti; the administrative claim was filed on November 23,
2003, while the Petition for Review before this Court was filed on May 4, 2005.
Clearly then, respondent's right to refund has not yet prescribed.
For this Court to rule that the right to recover its excess income tax has
prescribed under the foregoing circumstances would be to deprive the law of its
quality of fairness and justice then, if there is no recognition of what had
h·anspired prior to such adjudication.1 2
Thus, the principle of solutio indebiti should be applied in the present case.
The government should not use technicalities to hold on to money that does not
belong to it.13
I further quote with approval the ruling made in the assailed Decision, to
wit:
The Notes to Financial Statements, attached to MERALCO's

Audited Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2003
and 2002, stated:
"xxx The loss arising from the SC decision amounted

to ~28,728 million, which represents the amount of refund
to its customers of ~0.167 per kwh for billing cycles from
February 1994 to December 31, 2002. The Company's 2002
financial statements have been restated to reflect U1e loss
arising from the SC decision. Refunds covering the periods
February 1994 to December 31, 2001, amounting to ~23,817
12Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996, 261 SCRA 144, 168.
r
13Southern Philippines Power Corporation v. Conunissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 179632, October
19, 2011, d ti"g Store Umd /"'"""""/ Coryomtioo v. Commi"''"" of'"'"'"/ R""""'· G.R. No. 171956, J o J
18,2008,542 SCRA 114, 123.
DISSENTING OPINION
CfA EB CASE NO. 773 (CfA Case No. 7242)
Page 8 of 11
million, net of tax effect for 1999 of ~1,126 million (see Note
23), were accounted for as an exh·aordinary loss in the 2002
statement of income. Refunds covering the period Janua1y
1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, amounting to ro,785 million
were reflected as a reversal of 2002 revenues. The related
tax effect of ~1,133 million is reflected as a reduction in the
provision for income tax (see Note 23). The Company's
revenues for the first five months of 2003 were adjusted to
reflect a rollback of its distribution rates totalling
approximately ~1,595 million."
Based from the foregoing, the amounts to be refunded to or

credited against future consumption of MERALCO's customers
pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision in G.R. Nos. 141314 and
141369 totalled ro0,323 million, broken down as follows:
Amount of Refund
Period Covered
(in millions)
Feb. 1994 to December 31, 2001 ~ 24,943
Jan. 1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2002 3,785
Jan. 1 to May 2003 1,595
12 30,323
A scrutiny of MERALCO's Statement of Income (as restated) for

the year ended December 31, 2002 shows that MERALCO h·eated the
refundable amount covering the period of February 1994 to December
31, 2001 as an exh·aordinary loss but in the amount of ~23,817 million,
net of tax effect for 1999 of ~1,126 million. Likewise, MERALCO
reflected the refundable amount of ~3,785 million as reduction from
the revenues of ~121,606 million originally reported by MERALCO,
resulting in a reduced revenue amount of ~117,821million for the said
year. The related tax effect of ~1,133 million was shown as a reduction
from the provision for income tax.
However, in its Amended Annual Income Tax Return for the

taxable year 2002, MERALCO did not charge to expense or loss nor
deduct against its revenues for the year 2002 any of the refundable
amounts of ~23,817 million and ~3,785 million covering the periods
February 1994 to December 31, 2001 and January 1, 2002 to December
31, 2002, respectively. This can be clearly seen from MERALCO's
Reconciliation of Net Income Per Books Against Taxable Income for the
taxable year 2002, wherein MERALCO's net taxable i.J.1.come per return
in the amount of 1>1,166,760,574.00 was based on MERALCO'Snet los~
DISSENTING OPINION
CIA EB CASE NO. 773 (CIA Case No. 7242)
Page 9 ofll
per books in the amount of F2,015,232,945.00. It must be noted that the

net loss per books of F2,015,232,945.00 was the amount reported by
MERALCO before it reflected the refundable amounts of F23,817
million and ro,785 million as exh·aordinary loss and revenue reversal
for the year 2002, respectively.
In its Statement of Income for the year ended December 31,

2003, MERALCO reflected the refundable amount of P1,595 million as
reduction of its revenues for the months of January to May 2003. With
regard to the refundable amounts covering the periods February 1994
to December 31, 2001 and January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002,
MERALCO reflected the same in its Balance Sheet as of December 31,
2003 under the "Unappropriated Retained Earnings" account as "Prior
period adjustments arising from customers refund" in the amount of
P26,469 million net of the tax effect for 1999 and 2002 in the respective
amounts of P1,126 million and F1,133 million. In other words, in
arriving at its net income per books of P907 million for the year ended
December 31, 2003, MERALCO deducted from its revenues only the
refundable amount of P1,595 million pertaining to the months of
Januruy to May 2003.
Inasmuch as it was the net income per books in the amount of

12907 million which was reconciled with the net income per Annual
Income Tax Return for the year ended December 31, 2003 and none of
the reconciling items pertain to the amounts to be refunded/ credited to
MERALCO' s customers, it may be safely concluded that MERALCO
did not charge to expense/loss nor deduct against its revenues for the
said year the amounts to be refunded or credited to its customers
pertaining to the period February 1994 to December 31, 2002.
As for the taxable years 2004 and 2005, MERALCO' s Audited

Financial Statements and Amlllal Income Tax Returns for the said
years also proved that it did not charge to expense or loss nor deduct
against its revenues for the said years the amounts it has
refunded/ credited to its customers pursuant to the Supreme Court's
Decision in G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369.
Based on its liability account for Customers Refund as reflected

in its Audited Balance Sheets as of the years ended December 31, 2002,
2003, 2004 and 2005, MERALCO refunded a total amount of P10,566
million as of December 31, 2005 which was charged to the said account
and not to any expense/ revenue account for the said years, as
summarized below:
DISSENTING OPINION
CIA EB CASE NO. 773 (CIA Case No. 7242)
Page 10 ofll
2002 2003 2004 2005

(AMOUNTS EN MELUONS)
Balance, January 1 p - p 28,728 p 25,608 p 20,551
Add: Set up of Refund 28,728 1,595 - -
Subtotal p 28,728 p 30,323 p.. 25,608 p 20,551
Less: Refunded - 4,715 5,057 794
Balance, December 31 F 28,728 p 25,608 p 20,551 F 19,757
Present Value Effect (4,234)
Balance as shown in Balance Sheet, Dec. 31 (Nominal) F 28,728 p 25,608 p 20,551 p 15,523
Breakdown of AP-Customers Refund as shown in B/ S

Current F 22,594 p 6,919 12 5,409 12 3,787
Non-Current 6,134 18,689 15,142 11,736
Total p 28,728 p 25,608 12 20,551 12 15,523
Total Refunded to customers to date p - p 4,715 p 9,772 p 10,566

Balance, December 31 (Real) 28,728 25,608 20,551 19,757
Total F 28,728 p 30,323 F 30,323 F 30,323
However, while MERALCO' s Audited Balance Sheets show that

MERALCO has refunded/ credited to its customers a total amount of
.J.210,566 million as of December 31, 2005, such amount does not
reconcile with the figure of 1210,565 million shown in the Manifestation
dated September 25, 2006, which MERALCO filed with the Energy
Regulatory Commission (ERC) on October 2, 2006. Apparently, there
were discrepancies on the amounts actually refunded by MERALCO to
the prejudice of the consuming public but this does not negate the
findings of this Court that MERALCO did not charge to expense/loss
nor deduct against its revenues for the said years the amounts to be
refunded or credited to its customers pertaining to the period from
February 1994 to December 31, 2002.14
And considering that the basis of the present claim for refund is the
increased rate adjustment in the average amount of 120.184 per kilowatthour,
pursuant to ERB's Order dated January 28,1994, which was subsequently lowered
by ERB's Decision dated February 16, 1998, and resolved with finality by the
Supreme Court in the case of Republic of the Philippines, et al., v. Manila Electric
14 Rollo, pp. 48-53.

DISSENTING OPINION
0' A EB CASE NO. 773 (0' A Case No. 7242)
Page 11 ofll
Company, Inc,15 I see no reason to deviate from the pronouncement that the order
of refund or issuance of tax credit certificate is subject to and in proportion to the
refund/ credit to future consumption due to respondent's customers in the
average amount of F0.167 per kilowatthour. Indeed, it will amount to injustice if
respondent can recover all the excess income tax payments without
refunding/ crediting the amount it overcharged to its customers.
Accordingly, I vote for the DENIAL of the Petition for Review for lack of
merit. Therefore, the impugned Decision dated December 6, 2010 and Resolution
dated Apri115, 2011, in CTA Case No. 7242 should be AFFIRMED in toto.
WE CONCUR:
-#---
CAESAR A. CASANOVA
~N.M~~-C~
CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS
Associate Justice
15 G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369, N ovember 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 700.

Cta Eb CV 00773 D 2012may08 Ref PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cta Eb CV 00773 D 2012may08 Ref PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

·.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

A COSTA, Presiding Justice,

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Promulgated:

the mandate ofthe law is obeyed. (}fJt

This is a Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal

Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended, in relation to Rule 43 of the

dispositive portions of which read, as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Amended

1. Respondent's denial due to prescnptwn of

2. Respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND or TO

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, both respondent's

Petitioner is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue

she may be served with summons and other legal processes.

On the other hand, respondent Manila Electric Company (hereinafter

"MERALCO") is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the

supplying electric power within its franchise area. It is a registered taxpayer

with TIN 000-101-528-000 and Certificate of Registration No.

OCN8RCOOOOO 16119 issued by the BIR.

The facts, as found by the Second Division, are, as follows:

On December 23, 1993, MERALCO filed with the Energy Regulatory

hearing and evaluation, should MERALCO be entitled to a lesser increase in

rates, all excess amounts collected by MERALCO shall be refunded to its

customers or credited to their future consumption.

on gross electric revenue computed at an average basic distribution rate of

On February 16, 1998, the ERB rendered a decision granting a rate

MERALCO appealed the decision of the ERB to the Court of Appeals,

docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46888. On February 24, 1999, the Court of

Appeals rendered a decision reversing the ERB decision.

No. 141314 entitled "Republic of the Philippines, represented by Energy

Company ", respectively.

On November 15, 2002, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in G.R.

dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant

Consequently, MERALCO's gross electric revenue during the taxable

reduced, thereby resulting to excess income tax payments, as follows:

ORIGINAL REDUCED INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

of excess income tax payments with the CIR.

On May 4, 2005, due to inaction, MERALCO appealed to this Court in

of a "Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam )".

In her answer, by way of special and affirmative defenses, the CIR

alleged: this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition;

MERALCO to refund PO.l67 per kilowatthour to its consumers; and the

amounts it should refund to its consumers.

On November 22, 2005, MERALCO filed a "Motion for Leave to Amend

that on October 3, 2005, MERALCO received the letter-decision dated

be refunded or issued a tax credit certificate in the amount of

P6,035,988,264.00, representing excess income tax payments for taxable years

1994-1998 and 2000.

On November 24, 2005, the Second Division granted MERALCO's

( 15) days from notice to file her amended answer.

On December 9, 2005, the CIR filed her "Answer" to the Amended

Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam).

After the pre-trial was terminated, on May 5, 2006, MERALCO filed a

"Motion to Suspend Proceedings", which the Court granted.

On September 20, 2006, the CIR filed a "Manifestation with Motion to

Admit Attached Supplemental Answer", which the Court granted. On

After trial on the merits, on December 6, 2010, the Second Division

On December 23, 2010, MERALCO filed a "Motion for Partial

motions were denied for lack of merit.

WHETHER THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE

Comment on Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Petition for Review",

MERALCO filed its Comment to the Petition for Review.